I am planning on using either a PQ 3cell 3100Mah battery or a Maxamp 3cell 4000Mah. I have checked the MPX Motor calculator but I am not sure how far I can push the Speed480 or the 450 turbo motors when it comes to the props. So far it seems likely that I might use the Apc 6x3 or 6x4 props since the efficiency seems to be over 70% with those.

In my regular flying field I have got limited space for both takeoffs and landings because of surrounding trees. That is why I usually need to use spoilerons and down elevator for landing my bigger planes. How do this work on the TW? Any comments?

Those batteries may still be much too light for the TS.

The Mpx motor calculator often comes out with much lower currents than in reality, so be careful. Max amps for long can Permax 480 = 12A, for Turbo 450 = 15A.

Spoilerons work very well on the TSII - on my old TS I use thrust reverse (Schulze car controller).

OK, now I see... If you find the performance of the EasyStar dismal then everything is clear for me: you have a very serious problem either in your setups or in the way you fly. I suggest you check http://www.plawner.net and read their independent review of the EasyStar.

Yes, the only explanation for any disagreement you have with me MUST be that I am defective. Of course. What other possibility is there?

I am starting to wonder if you have ever flown a model with a properly matched powerplant. Perhaps you have flown cheap direct-drive Speed 400 setups for so long that you do not realize how much improvement is to be had from better engineered power setups that are actually matched to the airframe.

The EasyStar is a very nice beginner model. I have repeatedly recommended it to newbies and to those wishing to enter the hobby. It also has a barely adequate amount of power to fly. This is entirely appropriate for a first plane where more power means getting into trouble sooner, and docile, slow flight is all that is required.

As the numerous hopped-up EasyStars mentioned on RC Groups illustrate, this very nice airframe is a lot more enjoyable to fly as a powered model when the power is upgraded.

The reason you get into arguments with me (and many other on RC Groups) is simple - you are often abrasive, insulting, and caustic, as in the excerpt from your post above. It never seems to occur to you that your opinions and preferences are only that, opinions and preferences, worth no more than anyone else's.

If you enjoy flying overweight, underpowered planes with inefficient and poorly matched powerplants, fine. Perhaps you enjoy them because you don't know any better. Perhaps you enjoy them because of your unique tastes (like this guy I ran into who loved his Yugo). But in either case, you don't get to dictate to everyone else that they have to enjoy overweight and underpowered planes too.

I will continue to post here when I fell I have something useful to contribute, whether to answer a question or to report the eventual performance of my Twinstar. I'm done with Mr. Costa, however, and he is going on my ignore list.

To everyone else on this thread, my apologies for the bad taste I've shown in allowing myself to be dragged into this useless discussion with Jcosta. I knew better (see the last paragraph of post #1057), but I allowed myself to be sucked in anyway.

I posted a little question (1449) about a brushed setup for the TSI. As I have many 3cell lipo packs but no Nimh packs and want to use them but not buying 2 BL motors and 2 Esc what do you guys suggest? I have thought of using either two Permax 480 or two Permax 450 Turbo. Would these handle a 3 cell lipo and not get burned out within a few hours of flying? What kind of prop would be the most efficient for this?

I have twin 480s that cam with my Twinjet that I have never used. Also, a Multiplex Sun 30 or 40 amp ESC, that has never been flown only bench tested. PM me if interested.

Let us agree that we diasagree and let the world go on and behave like what we are (hopefully adults). Jcosta. there is no way you can tell another person or fellow RCu member that he/she is dumb just because they prefer another solution than you. We are here to discuss and help one another, not to make anyone look foolish. In this hobby there is so much to learn and to try that none is fully capable of telling anyone that you are wrong/dumb or anything else that will make another member look bad just because they give advice based on their own experiences and tastes. Do you really know it all???

hey now,
Wow, things exploded overnight, how cool.
So much here to respond to this could take a while

Does the TSII *need* BL and/or LiPos? No of course not. I'm sure it'll fly o.k. with the stock set up. The TSI did fine.
Are BL motors more effcient than brushed? Generaly yes they are (this is a question?) Some are as high as 90% plus (check Hacker and Kontronik).
Of course Astro-flight cobalt brushed motors are pretty effcient too, better than many cheap BL motors (Blasphemy!).

Are 3s Lipos more powerful than 2s? Duh!

Does the TSII benefit from more power? Sure, why not? The TSI sure did

Do Americans tend to over power everything? No, but we are the ones who took a perfectly good (if under powered) brittish sports car and dumped a 900 horse power engine in (yeah, I had a Cobra in my mis-spent youth).

Does the 7.2v can motor last longer with 3s LiPos than the 6v? you bet your donkey they do!

Now here's the thing; Some folks here are very much into "flying on the wing"
and as a confirmed glider guider I agree that it is a great way to fly, and in many cases the proper way. Also a good skill to have, I recomend that every pilot spend some time at the slope learning to fly without motors, this way you'll never fear the engine out senarios again.

Other folk like to fly "on the prop", and that's fine too, hey I fly 3d stuff, can't get any more "on the prop" than that, unless you fly choppers

I doubt that any one here thinks they're going to hover their TSII, although now that I write this, it does sound kinda cool

O.k., sure the TSII is designed to fly on the wing, and does it very well.
Sure if you're a good pilot and have enough room you'll never really need more than that with this model.
However.
A little extra power is a nice thing to have, and as the Grateful Dead said "too much of everything is just enough".
Being able to power out of trouble is good and pushing an airframe to it's limits and beyond can be lots of fun.
but having extra thrust and speed doesn't mean you *have* to use it.
Just because my 928 can go over 150mph doesn't mean I drive it that fast (often). You can always throttle back and cruise...

If you want to use the stock set up and stooge around the field in a relaxed way doing basic areobatics, that's cool.
If you want to fly a bit faster (the airframe is rather draggy after all) and do somewhat more extreme aerobatics, that's cool too.
But, however, and if, you want to go *f*a*s*t* buy an F5D model like an Avionik D99 (got one, it's a blast!) if you want to do crazy areobatics, buy a 3D or Pattern model (did that too).

The TSII is a fun, relaxing, sport model that doesn't push any limits and even makes a good second model, let's not try and make it more than it is folks.
O.k., this is getting way too long so I'll quit here, you get the idea...
RobII

...
The EasyStar is a very nice beginner model. I have repeatedly recommended it to newbies and to those wishing to enter the hobby. It also has a barely adequate amount of power to fly.
...
-Flieslikeabeagle

I hate to disagree, but I fly mine with a Speed 300, 7.2V and 7 old KAN 950 NiMH. When using the standard Permax 400, you can loop from level flight. I would not call this barely adequate power for a beginners model.

...
O.k., sure the TSII is designed to fly on the wing, and does it very well.
Sure if you're a good pilot and have enough room you'll never really need more than that with this model.
...
RobII

Don't forget that the TS II has much better aerodynamics and needs a lot less power. You also don't need much room when you keep her light. I would not mind to fly her Indoors, but the Easy Glider Electric or the Twin-Jet look more spectacular there.

They will NOT work OK with the stock battery pack though. Forgive me for not going back 100 pages and checking which battery you're using, could you remind us here?

For a given input voltage, a 7.2 V motor will turn fewer RPMs at a given input voltage.

Also, we should note here that it is not the higher voltage that kills a motor; it is the higher current pushed by that voltage. It is not the same thing, because if you have a smallish 9.6V 8 cell pack, it is not going to have the ampacity to push a high enough current to damage the 6V stock motors.

jcosta, just because iceman3 and I are not happy with the thrust of the stock setup does not mean that we do not have good flying skills. It just means that we like to have more than "adequate" thrust. This is especially important if one flies in smaller areas, where one needs the ability to climb quickly if one is to utilize the area well. Also, if one is more accustomed to flying conventional planes, some with a LOT of thrust, it is a bitter pill to swallow to have such a nice-flying plane lacking thrust. The fact that iceman3 is Norweigian and not American disproves your theory that it is because Americans always like to have "too much". Possibly, he has windy conditions like I do? Possibly he does not have a huge area to fly in, so he needs to be able to climb quickly? But I doubt it is that he and I are lesser pilots than yourself and Jürgen.

Jeremy,

My post was referring to the statement that the EasyStar flies badly in the stock configuration, from Flieslikeabeagle. An EasyStar with the Gunther prop and a 7 cell pack NiMH has all the performance one can need. I do fly it with 8 cell 2/3A packs (Kan 1050 and GP1100), at the cost of a shorter motor life. Still it needs at least a hundred hours on the motor before it starts loosing power. With a new motor, I've flown it with a 6 cell NiMH pack without any problems...

I did employ a caveat about "most Americans" in RCGroups wanting too much power. It is not exclusively an American trait. I have a friend who can only fly planes with at least 1:1 thrust to weight ratios... And I am definitely not on the same level as Jürgen, the guy can fly anything indoor!!! But being a sailplane flyer I always fly on the wing and not on the prop. I must confess I don't like flying the typical indoor plane for that precise reason, they only fly on the prop, not on the wing. When I fly indoor I use a Graupner Mini Piper...

I fly my Twinstar with one of several 8 cell Sub-C packs - RC2400, GP2200, GP3700, Sanyo 3000. That would not work very well with the Speed 480 except with a bigger prop, as you say.

hey now,
Wow, things exploded overnight, how cool.
So much here to respond to this could take a while

Does the TSII *need* BL and/or LiPos? No of course not. I'm sure it'll fly o.k. with the stock set up. The TSI did fine.
Are BL motors more effcient than brushed? Generaly yes they are (this is a question?) Some are as high as 90% plus (check Hacker and Kontronik).
Of course Astro-flight cobalt brushed motors are pretty effcient too, better than many cheap BL motors (Blasphemy!).

Are 3s Lipos more powerful than 2s? Duh!

Does the TSII benefit from more power? Sure, why not? The TSI sure did

Do Americans tend to over power everything? No, but we are the ones who took a perfectly good (if under powered) brittish sports car and dumped a 900 horse power engine in (yeah, I had a Cobra in my mis-spent youth).

Does the 7.2v can motor last longer with 3s LiPos than the 6v? you bet your donkey they do!

Now here's the thing; Some folks here are very much into "flying on the wing"
and as a confirmed glider guider I agree that it is a great way to fly, and in many cases the proper way. Also a good skill to have, I recomend that every pilot spend some time at the slope learning to fly without motors, this way you'll never fear the engine out senarios again.

Other folk like to fly "on the prop", and that's fine too, hey I fly 3d stuff, can't get any more "on the prop" than that, unless you fly choppers

I doubt that any one here thinks they're going to hover their TSII, although now that I write this, it does sound kinda cool

O.k., sure the TSII is designed to fly on the wing, and does it very well.
Sure if you're a good pilot and have enough room you'll never really need more than that with this model.
However.
A little extra power is a nice thing to have, and as the Grateful Dead said "too much of everything is just enough".
Being able to power out of trouble is good and pushing an airframe to it's limits and beyond can be lots of fun.
but having extra thrust and speed doesn't mean you *have* to use it.
Just because my 928 can go over 150mph doesn't mean I drive it that fast (often). You can always throttle back and cruise...

If you want to use the stock set up and stooge around the field in a relaxed way doing basic areobatics, that's cool.
If you want to fly a bit faster (the airframe is rather draggy after all) and do somewhat more extreme aerobatics, that's cool too.
But, however, and if, you want to go *f*a*s*t* buy an F5D model like an Avionik D99 (got one, it's a blast!) if you want to do crazy areobatics, buy a 3D or Pattern model (did that too).

The TSII is a fun, relaxing, sport model that doesn't push any limits and even makes a good second model, let's not try and make it more than it is folks.
O.k., this is getting way too long so I'll quit here, you get the idea...
RobII

OK, I fully agree with everything you have said in this post. It seems sailplane "drivers" have a different mind set... When I want fast I fly a hotliner... When I want even faster I fly F3B or F3F, no motor whatsoever...
And I think you have hit the issue, it doesn't make sense to turn a Twinstar, which is basically a fun, relaxing model, into a monster. I don't feel the need to have more thrust, but I can understand wanting to have a little more thrust. But just a little...
Thanks for saying it better, less offensively and less caustically than me!

Jürgen, what percentage of your flying is indoors? I wonder, as you mention it often.

As the representative of the German Model Flying Association (DMFV) for SlowFly, I organise the Indoor Shows at the InterModellBau in Dortmund and at the modell, hobby & spiel Leipzig. That's already nine days of Indoor action. Last year there was the AERO in Friedrichshafen as well.

I fly on more days outside, but during those Shows I have approx. 20 flights a day (with various models).

Now here's the thing; Some folks here are very much into "flying on the wing"
and as a confirmed glider guider I agree that it is a great way to fly, and in many cases the proper way. Also a good skill to have, I recomend that every pilot spend some time at the slope learning to fly without motors, this way you'll never fear the engine out senarios again.

FWIW, I've spent a few hours on the slopes last year, and loved it. When the summer winds kick up in this corner of the world, I will be back on the local hillsides, picking foxtails out of my socks and climbing precariously on steep hillsides to recover my slope plane(s).

I'd add that a glider in decent sloping conditions has considerably more "power" in terms of aerobatic ability than a stock EasyStar or Twinstar does; it's just that gravity and the wind are supplying that power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elfwreck

The TSII is a fun, relaxing, sport model that doesn't push any limits and even makes a good second model, let's not try and make it more than it is folks.

I agree, I just happen to be one of folks who prefers a plane with enough thrust to accelerate quickly, and a pitch speed optimised to the airframe so it never tries to go faster than it is designed to. Usually a pitch speed of 2.5 - 3.5 times the stall speed works well.

I've spent countless hours floating around my GWS pico Tiger Moth, with the stock IPS motor and a 2A maximum current draw from a small 2S lipo pack - barely 15 W into the motor, and barely 7.5 W out the motor shaft as the IPS motor is very inefficient on a 2S lipo pack. However the deep gears and big prop at least do a good job of translating what little power is available into air movement.

I felt the minuscule power was entirely suited to the dainty, delicate nature of the 'Moth, just enough for ROG's and the odd loop with a dive to gain some speed first. That 'Moth provided perhaps the best touch-n-go fun I've had - it was so slow and stable that you could do touch-n-goes for as long as you cared to on a bare patch the size of a tabletop in the middle of our grass field.

To my eye the Twinstar is not as pretty as the 'Moth, and certainly not as floaty, so I don't want mine to fly with a power level comparable to my old 'Moth. I think much more fun can be had with a Twinstar with a powerplant that lets you do loops, rolls, and inverted flight right now, rather than after carefully building up altitude and trading it off for speed in a dive.

We think somewhat alike in terms of cars: after driving a friends Porsche 944, I coveted one for years (never seriously considered the 928 because of the rather high maintainence costs). I eventually bought a Datsun 240Z (the 944 and 240Z were race track rivals back in the day, with the 240Z taking more of the honours on the track) that I loved to death - though I never managed to squeeze more than three parkflyers into it! These days I drive a '90 Supra Turbo - heavy and soft, less sporty than I hoped for, but with good accelertion and passable handling.

I ride a bicycle that is very underpowered (because the powerplant is 41 years old and not in the best of physical condition ), but I don't want my cars to drive the same way as my bicycle.